Justin Smith examines the Right to self-protection is God-given and hence gun ownership for protection cannot be overridden by any law manufactured by human hands.
The opinion is sure to chap the hides of the Left seeking to disengage all things of the Biblical God Almighty from the Rule of Law and American cultural thinking. I for one refuse to believe my existence upon physical death dissolves into an amalgamation atoms and molecules into the material world. I’ll trust in God’s Word in Salvation and eventual resurrected life into God’s Kingdom in Christ Jesus the Savior.
As to the usefulness of a bump stock for protection of Life, Liberty and Property: the I see the American Left manufacture law by Judicial fiat rather the consent of the governed or redesign existing law to the detriment of the governed, the more I sense Americans will embark on a new Jeffersonian Declaration of Independence from a tyrannical Left:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. (YOU should really read entirety)
JRH 12/22/18
*****************
A God-Given Right That Preexists Government
By Justin O. Smith
Sent 12/21/2018 2:09 PM
If the American people don’t like firearms and the Second Amendment, for any reason, it isn’t the President’s place to limit or regulate any firearm or accessory by executive order, as President Trump recently did with bump stocks that accelerate a rifle’s rate of fire. It is up to the people to repeal the Second Amendment, if they really desire the removal of a negative right that limits what the federal government can do against them. That is the only legitimate recourse. [Blog Editor: Lawsuit in the works]
Even then, any action against the Second Amendment wouldn’t negate or abolish our God-given right to self-defense and to bear any weapon for that lawful purpose, under Natural Law and as acknowledged by the Supreme Court in 2008. A majority of sovereign individuals cannot legitimately take away or abrogate the God-given rights of any one sovereign individual.
[Blog Editor: I highly support the concept of the “sovereign individual” yet only in the context Judeo-Christian faith. I reject most of the ideology of the Sovereign Citizen Movement as inimical to representative government that lead to terrorism inflicting chaos on the community of citizens who wittingly or unwittingly themselves to the social contract of representative government. AND although I reject the idiotic extremist ideology of Sovereign Citizens; if or when the government bypasses the interest of the Represented (i.e. We The People) violating Rights created by the Creator, then sovereign individuals can resist the government along terms articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Those terms do not vacate government taxation unless the taxation is levied without the consent of the governed. AND those terms insure the Rights of individuals to band together to protect God-Given Life, Godly-Liberty and legitimately acquired Property. And for clarity’s sake – that is my interpretive opinion. Full disclosure my opinion is not absolute though I feel valid:
The federal government absolutely does not have the right and authority to regulate our God-given Right to possess and carry any weapon for the Lawful purpose of Self-Defense. And neither do the states.
In Heller v District of Columbia in 2008, the Supreme Court acknowledged that our right to keep and bear arms was a God-given right that preexists government and the Constitution and went further, stating individuals could own weapons of the same sophistication and technological advancement as the military.
I say carry when and if one wishes, anytime. If everyone did this, the law couldn’t arrest the nation. And those who do get arrested should question the authority of the State to do so, on the Constitutional grounds of the Second Amendment. Eventually the Supreme Court will be forced to recognize, so long as a person isn’t committing any crime with his firearm, he has the right to have it on him, anytime, regardless of whether he or she is black, white, red, yellow, brown or pink.
ANY “Law” restricting one’s right to carry a firearm is No Law at All and Should Be IGNORED And REPEALED.
I fault any president who doesn’t understand our founding and its principles thoroughly enough to articulate the same position I just did. Instead, we have had a long train of presidents who, despite their on-the-record campaign statements, have seemed all too willing to go along with the illiberal tyrannically bent Democrats and their activist judge lackeys in their machinations to disarm Americans at every opportunity. And that’s just the plain facts of the matter … no hyperbole here.
by Justin O Smith
________________
Edited by John R. Houk
Source links and text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.
Here is a quote that rings true about Lower Federal Courts striking down President Trump’s Executive Order travel ban from Islamic terrorist ridden nations or areas:
“Lower federal court judges have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional based on their ideology, not the rule of law”.
The quote comes from journalist author Douglas V. Gibbs at the Canada Free Pressspeculating with some positivecertainty that SCOTUS will strike down the Lower Courts to President Trump’s favor.
Gibbs’ positivism comes from the plain English of the U.S. Constitution. Ergo Gibbs posits that SCOTUS will uphold the rule of law spelled out in ink in the Constitution.
I pray Gibbs is correct. We are about to find out of a Trump appointee to the Supreme Court was worth waiting to elect him as President.
There are roughly two trains of thought on Constitutional interpretation: Original Intent of the Founders and the Living Constitution which can loosely interpreted to fit the Secular Humanist’s view of what society is or will be.
President Trump’s EOs ran into Left-Wing Activist Judges committed to the Living Constitution interpretation.
The Activist Judges struck down President Trump’s Travel Ban Eos by interpreting Donald Trump’s campaign speeches as being anti-Islam and so the EOs were aimed at discriminating against Muslims rather protecting American citizens.
If a majority of SCOTUS Justices follow the Living Constitution methodology of interpretation you can kiss Separation of Powers goodbye in the separate but equal Checks and Balances that Civics so often affirmed as a constitutional doctrine of the U.S. Government.
WHY?
Because a Living Constitution Judicial Branch becomes the dictator of laws made by man rather than the rule of law. A Judicial dictatorship was one of the great concerns of the Founding Fathers of the constitutionally created Judicial Branch:
“[N]othing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.“- ThomasJefferson [UndeniableQuotes: The Founding Fathers Warn About SCOTUS]
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – AlexanderHamilton [UndeniableQuotes: The Founding Fathers Warn About SCOTUS]
It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped. (ThomasJefferson – It has long – QuotesDatabase)
The Judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will. (TheJudiciary – QuotesDatabase)
The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. (The Constitution – Quotes Database)
And it proves, in the last place, that liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments. (And it Proves – Quotes Database)
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. (TheAccumulation of all Powers – QuotesDatabase)
These are just a few quotes by the Founding Fathers on concerns of one Branch dominating the others thus promoting tyranny. To do a little reading on your own about the concerns of dominant Branch tyranny go to Quotes Database category Separationof Powers Quotations.
My concern currently is Judicial Tyranny which the concept of the Living Constitution enables. And it was Judicial Tyranny stemming from Living Constitution ideology that struck down the Executive Orders of President Trump.
The President has asked SCOTUS to expedite a decision on those Executive Orders. How SCOTUS rules will either strengthen Living Constitution Judicial Tyranny a take an important step toward Constitutional Supremacy.
In Trump’s Travel Ban Executive Order, the laws he is executing with the order are listed. Among them is a law that gives the President the ability to prohibit persons from entering the United States if he believes they may be a danger to the national security of this country.
Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to make laws prohibiting persons from “migrating” into the United States with legislation.
Based on the original intent of the United States Constitution, Trump’s travel ban regarding a few Muslim-majority countries who have proven they are sponsors of terrorism, and are willing to harbor terrorists, is completely constitutional.
Lower federal court judges have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional based on their ideology, not the rule of law.
There is no authority granted to the courts to strike down executive orders in the U.S. Constitution, so the actions of these judges have no foundation in constitutional law.
If President Trump understood all of these things, then he would simply tell the lower court judges to kiss off, and he would execute his travel ban, anyway. The courts have no enforcement arm, and have no authority over his executive branch agencies.
Immigration in the sense of who can cross the border, as per Article I, Section 9, is a federal issue. The 1st Amendment’s religious clauses only disallow the Congress from making law establishing a state religion, or writing laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion within our jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with the religion of who is entering (if Islam is a religion at all in the first place), and Article I, Section 9 does not mention that a religious test cannot be used in connection with which migrants can be prohibited. It also does not violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments because this is regarding people who aren’t even citizens of the United States. As for the alleged ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law, all Congress has to do is repeal that law, and replace it with a new one.
The Democrats have somehow equated the rejection of Islam by conservatives as being akin to how Germany treated the Jews while under the NAZI regime prior to, and during, World War II. The reality is, Islam is not a religion, it is a political system and full way of life that calls itself a religion, and it has more in common with the NAZIs than it does with the persecuted Jews.
As Commander in Chief, among his primary functions, the President must protect the country (national security), and that is what his travel ban executive order seeks to accomplish. Despite what one may think, the reality is that terrorism runs rampant in Islam, and in the countries listed. If Islam doesn’t want us fearing them, and having the inclination that all Muslims are either terrorists, or support terrorist activity, then Islam needs to clean its own house (if that is even possible). The problem is, like the Germans who were not NAZIs in Germany, the moderate Muslims are a moot point. The violent jihadists are the ones driving the message of Islam, so that is what we have to address, despite the alleged notion that the poor moderate Muslims are not in agreement with the violence.
We, as a nation, have the right to protect ourselves from any potential enemy, no matter what they choose to call themselves (regime, government, or religion).
While there is no timetable on how quickly the Supreme Court will issue a final ruling in the case (again, I am not a supporter of the unconstitutional concept of judicial review, but as the system is thought to be now, this is the last resort the President has. . . aside from ignoring the courts, and carrying out his duties despite their opinions), there are other lower court decisions also brewing regarding the issue. Two federal appeals courts are also currently considering the issue, and a ruling from the 9th Circus is still pending. Trump’s Justice Department, however, has asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the issue now.
“The justices have the discretion to wait indefinitely to decide the broader merits of the case, but will issue an order in the meantime on whether the ban can be temporarily enforced. The federal government asked the high court to allow the order to go into effect now, and proposed oral arguments be held in October.”
The White House frames the issue as a temporary move involving national security, as they should. Bureaucrats and men in black robes should not be able to interfere with the duties of the President as Commander in Chief. His job to protect the United States, while on some fronts are dependent upon Congress (such as when it comes to funding), is his to prosecute, and for judges to abandon the rule of law and act in a manner based on ideology regardless of the law is disgusting, and unconstitutional.
The executive order is the second one. Rather than fight for the first one, the language was changed in a manner that was considered to be “bullet proof,” and then was issued March 6. The revision, in addition to the added “bullet proof” language, also removed Iraq from the list of countries.
Officials say the new executive order only applies to foreign nationals outside the U.S. without a valid visa.
The appeals court said its decision was based on what Trump said on the campaign trail about “banning Muslims.”
Chief Judge Roger Gregory called it an “executive order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”
Intolerance? The Islamic culture has declared war on the United States, and the liberal left Democrats are treating this like it is a slight misunderstanding. What about Islamic intolerance? How about we ban mosques in the United States until Muslim countries start welcoming the building of churches and synagogues on their lands. Did you know if you fly into a Muslim country, if they search you and discover you have a Bible, it will be destroyed onsite? What about the genocide against Christians occurring in Muslim-majority countries? Is that tolerance?
During World War II, would these judges have considered a ban against persons from the axis powers intolerant?
By the way, the law that started this thing about the President’s authority to prohibit immigration began with the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, which gives the president the allowance to restrict immigration into the United States if he believes the persons to be a danger to our national security. It was passed during a time when we as a country were worried about communist infiltration. Some Democrats weren’t too happy back then, either, despite the reality that it was a Democrat sponsored law. Carter, Reagan and Obama all used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including from nations such as Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, but you don’t remember the courts worried about Obama’s use of it, do you?
The court’s attacks against the executive order has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with who wrote the executive order. Congress should drag these activist judges before Congress and make them answer to the legislative branch for their unconstitutional rulings, and then impeach each and every one of them for their bad constitutional behavior. Congress should also pass law nullifying each and every one of those unconstitutional rulings (a power they have according to Article III’s “Exceptions Clause”).
The problem, in short, is not that the courts are misbehaving, but that Congress and the President are letting them.
The judicial branch is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches. They are not supposed to be a check against Congress or the President, other checks exist (or existed) to take care of that. The judicial branch’s job is clear. Their job is simply to apply the law to the cases they hear. If they believe the law is unconstitutional or unjust, then they can issue an opinion so that Congress may reconsider the law. What they are doing now has nothing to do with applying the law, or the rule of law. These leftist judges are simply ruling against the president for political reasons, and then are misinterpreting the law to make it sound like their rulings are within the law.
They all need to be thrown off their benches, and either replaced, or those particular inferior courts need to be dismantled and the regions absorbed by another court – again, an authority that Congress has, but has been unwilling to wield.
DouglasV. Gibbsof Political PistachioConservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks. Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator. Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017Canada FreePress.Com
CBN reports that President Trump is prepared to issue an Executive Order that places a premium on Religious Liberty. The CBN report says the EO is slated for the National Day of Prayer 5/4/17.
The Trump EO is certain to rip the minds of Leftists, Homosexuals and Separation/Church fanatics. It will probably end up in the Supreme Court. If I was Trump I’d tell the Leftists to get in line at SCOTUS.
President Trump reportedly will sign a controversial religious liberty executive order Thursday, just before he and conservative leaders celebrate the National Day of Prayer.
Citing senior administration officials, Politico reports that Trump has invited conservative speakers to the White House, where he will sign the executive order.
The draft seeks to provide exemptions for religious people and organizations who object to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, contraception and trans identity.
“The language is very, very strong,” one conservative source told Politico.
Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver says it’s essential to restore religious freedom protections at this time after years of attacks from President Obama.
In a commentary in The Orlando Sentinel, Staver argues that religious rights were undermined by Obamacare and numerous Obama appointees, like Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chairman Chai Feldblum.
“When asked about ‘sexual liberty’ (the LGBT agenda) and religious liberty, Feldblum said, ‘Sexual liberty should win in most cases. …(I)n almost all cases sexual liberty should win.’ She could not think of any instance in which religious liberty should win,” Staver points out.
Feldblum is still in office.
When it comes to Obamacare, Staver cites instances like the Hobby Lobby case and Little Sisters of the Poor, in which pro-life Americans were being forced to violate their religious beliefs on abortion.
“Obamacare spawned an unprecedented number of lawsuits over religious liberty. Most of the litigation is still ongoing. President Trump now has the opportunity, through executive order, to reverse course and rein in the federal government’s assault on religious freedom,” Staver writes.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is already revving up for a court battle against the expected order from Trump.
The ACLU says if he signs an executive order “that attempts to provide a license to discriminate against women or LGBT people, we will see him in court.”
Intro to Sutliff ‘The Deceitful Misinformation that Created a TRO’
By Paul Sutliff
Intro by John R. Houk, Blog Editor
Posted 4/4/17
Does anyone notice that activist Judges and Dem Party House and Senate members cry that President Trump’s travel ban Executive Orders are unconstitutional BUT don’t actually cite where in the Constitution they base that accusation?
They CAN NOT because NO such citation will be found. When the Left screams unconstitutional it typically is based on Leftist ideology and a false premise that Leftist values are American values. For that matter, there is not one iota of Left Wing values that can be supported in the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers’ eventual ratified document called the U.S. Constitution or the first 10 Amendments labeled the Bill of Rights!
With this Living Constitution baloney in mind, Hawaiian US District Judge Derrick Watson amended his mid-March original Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the latest Trump Executive Order (EO) to fit the Hawaiian Attorney General’s idiotic Living Constitution objections to extend the judicial order longer than the original:
HONOLULU — A federal judge in Hawaii decided Wednesday to extend his order blocking President Donald Trump’s travel ban.
US District Judge Derrick Watson issued the longer-lasting hold on the ban just hours after hearing arguments.
Hawaii says the policy discriminates against Muslims and hurts the state’s tourist-dependent economy. The implied message in the revised ban is like a “neon sign flashing ‘Muslim ban, Muslim ban'” that the government didn’t bother to turn off, state Attorney General Douglas Chin told the judge.
Extending the temporary order until the state’s lawsuit was resolved would … READ THE REST (Hawaii judge extends temporary restraining order against Trump’s revised travel ban; By Jennifer Sinco Kelleher, Associated Press; Business Insider; 3/29/17 11:14 PM)
Paul Sutliff believes the Hawaiian AG fed Judge Watson a pack of lies. That is significant because this Judge based his ruling on AG Chin’s information. Below is Paul’s analysis.
When evidence exists to prove a state attorney general purposefully misinformed a federal judge whether IN COURT or through paperwork as to what evidence exists to support a stand against the President of the United States what is this called? Is it perjury?
Hawaii AG Doug Chin was not under oath, but there is an expectation of professionalism and truthfulness when presenting before a judge whether through passing of papers OR standing and presenting a case! So why did he misinform Judge Derrick Watson about the statistics related to the University of Hawai’i.
AG Chin claimed that if Trump’s order restricting travel of those from 6 countries were to be enforced, the University of Hawai’i would suffer financially.
… that any prospective recruits who are without visas as of March 16, 2017 will not be able to travel to Hawaii to attend the University. As a result, the University will not be able to collect the tuition that those students would have paid. (http://www.hid.uscourts.gov/docs/orders/DKW_order.pdf)
So what are the actual statistics? I filed a FOIA request with the University of Hawai’i to find out.
According to the University of Hawai’i the entire University system has 13,352 students. Of those 13,352 students only, 43% of the student body as a whole were Iranian. One student came from Libya. One from Somalia and one from Yemen. In all 61 students at the University of Hawai’i would be effected through President Trump’s Executive Order. IF THEY WERE NOT ALREADY HERE!
Banned Countries by Trump EO
Total # of Students in UH System
Percentage of Student Body
Iran
58
0.43%
Libya
1
0.01
Somalia
1
0.01
Sudan
0
0.00
Syria
0
0
Yemen
1
.01
TOTAL
61
.46
Attorney General Douglass Chin made a claim that a drop in these students’ ability to attend classes would likely close the Persian Language, Linguistics and Culture Program courses. Only 52 students in total are enrolled in these courses taught by two professors. If AG Chin had a chance to find a negative effect against the University of Hawaii this was it. In all 4 students would be effected. Those four are from Iran, bringing the percentage of students effected of those that attend to 8%.
This brings us to asking simple and important questions. How could Hawaii State Attorney General not have access to this information? It took me one week to obtain it and I live in New York. This brings us back to, is it allowable for an attorney to purposefully withhold information for the purpose of misinforming a judge.
Attorneys Joel Cohen and Danielle Alfonso Walsman wrote about just this type of thing in the New York Law Journal on June 1, 2009 in an article entitled Asking for Trouble: When Lawyers Lie to Judges.
One of the first and most obvious things we learn as lawyers, and, indeed, the disciplinary rules make clear, is that lawyers must follow the same instructions given to clients in preparation for testimony: You cannot ever lie in court! And if a false representation is made to the court, even unintentionally, a lawyer who later realizes his error is affirmatively required to take reasonable measures to remedy the statement.
I do not know if Attorney General Douglass Chin considers his filing for a TRO against President Trump’s executive order a place he should be allowed to create misinformation to prove his point, but in either case these statistics prove that the TRO is at least partially established on false and misleading information. If the Judge had not bothered to pre-write his decision, he could have easily verified the information I am sharing and in so doing exposed AG Chin as not being wholly truthful in court.
The sad truth then is that this is likely evidence of collusion between the Hawaii AG and the Judge Derrick Watson. If Judge Derrick Watson had not come to the bench with a pre-judgment, he likely would have checked the statistical claims of the AG.
_____________
Edited by John R. Houk
About Paul Sutliff
I am writer and a teacher. Here is a link to my latest book portraying the truth aboutCivilization Jihad!
Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.
9th Circuit Appellate Justices Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.
Justin Smith reasoning demonstrates the hypocrisy and idiocy of the American Left’s rabid reaction to President Trump temporarily banning immigration and refugees from seven nations that Islamic terrorism is a hotbed of death.
President Trump doesn’t need to issue any new travel ban order, that may or may not please the anti-American activist judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal or other supporters of Islam and Sharia law (see Justice Elena Kagan’s tenure at Harvard University), open borders and international communism in the Supreme Court and within America’s own population. His original order was well within the U.S. Constitution and the law, and, in order to stop this current intrusion on the President’s authority in areas of foreign policy and national security, a usurpation of power and a judicial coup d’état, President Trump should defy the 9th Court and set to work with the Republican majority and any agreeable Democrats to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2of the Constitution and reclaim stolen legislative powers for Congress.
It has universally been acknowledged for over 230 years that the President, the United States Commander-in-Chief, has broad authority and great leeway in all matters of immigration and foreign policy and national security [Judge Napolitano & NRO], which places the recent ruling of leftist activist judges Michelle Friedland (Obama appointee) and William Canby Jr. (Carter appointee) on par with an act of treason. These two judges are so willing to give President Trump a political black eye, allowing Trump’s “Muslim ban” campaign statements to be used in the evaluation of his executive order, that they have ignored the law, circumvented the Constitution and violated the separation of powers clause between coequal branches of government; and, they have blatantly dismissed the reality of refugees, who can’t prove who they are and whether or not they have any ties to Islamic terrorist groups, while allowing district judge James Robart, another leftist activist judge (notwithstanding being a Bush appointee), to absurdly overrule the President of the United States on border security during wartime.
There is not any manner of violation against the U.S. Constitution and the 1965 Immigration Act in President Trump’s travel ban. Trump isn’t discriminating against anyone, but rather, he is looking at seven nations from a security threat assessment, which were already determined to be state sponsors of terror by former President Obama and his advisors, addressed in Section 1187 (a) (12) of an Obama-era provision of the immigration law.
And also in his executive order, President Trump expressly cites 1182 (f), enacted in 1952, which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such time as he may deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants … “. [Blog Editor: bold-italics is Editor’s]
In 1893, America was detaining approximately 20 percent of all hopeful immigrants reaching Ellis Island, due to sickness and disabilities, and anarchists and the insane were automatically rejected [Blog Editor: History.com point 4- Immigrants were subject to physical and mental exams to ensure they were fit for admittance to the United States]. About two percent of these immigrants were judged unfit to become U.S. citizens and sent home on the next ship. By the 1920s, our government established quotas based on nationality and skill. And the majority of Americans have always understood that just like anyone has the right to decide who enters their home, so too, our nation has that same sovereign right.
No “moral obligation” to these refugees exists that can compel us to allow them to enter without knowing for certain who they are. The moral obligation to open our doors, often mentioned by the Leftists and International Communists, doesn’t mean America must throw reason and caution to the wind.
People who do not share our values — Islamofascists seeking to reach America’s shores and murder Americans — and anti-American “refugees” seeking to transform America into a Balkanized hell are not welcome here.
America doesn’t have to destroy its cultural identity by helping foreigners, but this is precisely what Democrat commie bastards such as President Johnson and Senator Ted Kennedy intended to accomplish through the 1965 Immigration Act. This one law has eroded our cultural identity severely and created extremely detrimental demographic changes over time. And most recently, former President Obama specifically brought in one million immigrants from Muslim majority countries like Kosovo, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, even though these countries were the origin of terrorists that have already attacked America.
Many of America’s “progressive” Leftists consider the destruction of America, as we know it, to be a desirable goal, however, most Americans reject their fundamental change. Americans who love this country want a strong America, that will be able to defeat the dangerous ideologies currently threatening Western Civilization.
Rebuke the disingenuous pious progressives who decry those of us supporting the President’s executive order as anti-immigrant and issue flowery utterances on sanctuary, when sanctuary is for the truly persecuted innocents, like the Christians in the Middle East. Exercising our first responsibility to protect ourselves and Our Beloved America bears no shame.
Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ala) stated that Trump’s executive order was “plainly legal” under both statute and the Constitution, adding: “No foreigner has a constitutional right to enter the United States and courts ought not second-guess sensitive national security decisions of the President. This misguided ruling is from the 9th Circuit, the most notoriously left-wing court in America and the most reversed court at the Supreme Court.
Representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala) said, “Unfortunately, American lives are at risk until this unfounded and reckless [9th Court restraining] order is reversed by the Supreme Court.”
How can Americans trust unreliable and corrupt courts with our national security? The Supreme Court ruled Obamacare to be both constitutional and a tax, after Obama called it a “penalty” for years. The courts have overturned the will of ‘We the People’ in numerous referendums and centuries of traditions and hundreds of state and federal laws, so that they could manufacture non-existent rights to abortion and deviant, perverse homosexual “marriage” [coupling], rights that cannot and never will be found in Madison’s Constitution.
Judges and justices are not empowered by the Constitution to make U.S. law or govern the nation. Those duties fall solely to Congress and the President.
Pat Buchanan observed on February 10th that President Andrew Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s “prohibition” against moving the Cherokee Indians across the Mississippi and to the western frontier. He also noted President Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest Chief Justice Roger Taney, when Taney declared Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional.
President Trump must simply defy U.S. District Judge Robart’s overly broad and illegal restraining order, upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. He must order Homeland Security and his State Department and Justice Department to continue executing his executive order which is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and existing law, because his act is a rare and righteous moment in this war against terrorism, the Islamofascists, the Radical Left of America and the International Communists, who seek our demise. And a Constitutional crisis is much preferred over more murdered innocent Americans.
By Justin O. Smith
_____________
Edited by John R. Houk
Text embraced by brackets and source links are by the Editor.
When the 9th Circuit Appeals Court upheld a Lower Court stay on President Trump’s Executive Order temporarily banning citizens, refugees, and immigrants from seven nations that are hotbeds of Islamic terrorism, it demonstrated how Leftist Activist Judges ignore the Constitution in favor of Leftist utopianism. The American Left might as rip up the Constitution and burn the scraps of paper.
Paul Sutliff demonstrates how the 9th circuit is torching the U.S. Constitution with misinformation to justify Multiculturalist utopian goals.
The New York Post wrote an article on February 9th that clearly shows the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, carefully choosing words for the purpose of creating misinformation for the media to share with their readers and viewers regarding their actions against President Trump’s Executive Order. According to that article the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated:
“The Government has pointed to no evidence that an alien of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” the three-member panel wrote.”
The terminology “perpetrated a terrorist attack” explicitly excludes all actions prevented or attempted that did not result in a terror attack. Why is this important? There are at least 38 terrorists who were killed or arrested as they worked to be supportive of the Islamic State AND who were also classified as immigrants/refugees at one time. In addition, there areat least 6 persons who were killed or arrested for attempting an act of terror who were second generation Americans refugees. I filed this information in a federally filed affidavit in September 2016 as an Expert Witness. You will notice people from countries other than the seven countries listed in Trump’s ban.
All the information in the graphs below originated in the Threat Knowledge Group last accessed in September 2016, whose site was disabled recently with President Trump’s appointment of Sebastian Gorka, with the exception of the information in the last column which I found. Actual sources for the information cited in the last column is provided in my Affidavit.
Leo Hohmann has typed an article warning that Homeland chaos is on the way to confront Trump’s campaign promises on illegal immigrants and Muslim refugees. To be honest the article is also a WND promo for Hohmann’s book “STEALTH INVASION: MUSLIM CONQUEST THROUGH IMMIGRATION AND RESETTLEMENT JIHAD”. If the book is as informative as the Hohmann article, it is a must to get a hold of.
I pray political correctness does not pressure President Trump to cave in on his campaign promises on vetting Muslim Refugees. I have noticed the MSM has gone out of its way to highlight so-called peaceful Muslims out of the USA doing business yet now are not allowed back in to see their families residing on American soil.
Off the top of my head (no pun intended), a Muslim Ethiopian who is a British citizen has resided in Oregon for ten years. He communicated to his family in Oregon he may not be back to see them in Oregon for some time because he is a Muslim.
This is an example of crap news coming from the American Left.
ONE: The Trump EO refers to refugees from seven particular nations. NOT Muslims!
TWO: If the Ethiopian is a British citizen residing in Oregon already for ten years, he is not subject to the 7-nation refugee moratorium – HE’S A BRIT.
These kinds of stories are pure poppycock.
On the other hand, I do realize there are already unvetted Muslim refugees on American soil largely due to Obama’s Multiculturalist agenda. These refugees may have expected some family members from the 7-nation refugee moratorium and now there is a freeze for at least 90 days. That doesn’t mean those family members have a radical Muslim agenda against the USA. IT DOES MEAN those family members must be vetted to insure they have no hatred of America or any nefarious designs based on potential hatred. So, protest all you want. The USA has no need for foreign American-hating Muslims that feel they are on a divine Quranic mission.
Yesterday I blogged on some AWESOME vetting technology that President Trump could employ to make the vetting process move faster. The technology is called “COGITO”.
Now back to the Hohmann article.
Hohmann believes there are what he calls three flashpoints that will inspire the “global Islamic movement and its allies on the political left” to “confront” Trump’s policies:
Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem
Declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization
Restricting Islamic immigration into the U.S.
Trump confront back and I believe he will. BUT – If for some reason the American Left hamstrings President Trump, there is a Second Amendment option for private citizens to organize and confront back on American soil. Begin with confrontational peaceful protest. Then if the American Left and/or Muslims supporting Islamic Salafist ideology ups the ante with violence, be prepared to ante up ourselves.
A former Homeland Security officer who spent years screening Muslim immigrants points to three “triggers” of confrontation between the new administration of Donald Trump and the global Islamic movement.
These three issues will spawn a violent backlash in response to Trump as he attempts to implement what many believe are long-overdue reforms.
And Trump has already bumped head-on into one of the hot-button issues – Muslim immigration.
According to Phillip Haney, a founding member of the Homeland Security Department and author of the book “See Something Say Nothing,” the stars are lining up for a major confrontation with the global Islamic movement and its allies on the political left.
The “flashpoints” to watch going forward are these:
Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem
Declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization
Restricting Islamic immigration into the U.S.
Trump’s executive orders slapping a 120-day moratorium on refugee resettlement and a 30-day ban on those entering on visas from seven terror-sponsoring countries has been met with protests Sunday at airports in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit and Minneapolis.
In Hamtramck, Michigan, the nation’s first city to elect a Muslim-majority city council, protesters descended on City Hall Sunday with signs that included “Ban Bannon” and “We are all Immigrants.”
There were no such protests when former President Obama restricted Christian refugees from entering the U.S. from Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and other Muslim countries.
As Trump tries to rein in concessions given to the Muslim Brotherhood by the previous administrations of Clinton, Bush and Obama, he should expect the Brotherhood and its allies on the left to push back with hell’s fury, Haney said.
There will be lawsuits, ugly protests, and an all-out effort to create chaos in the streets of U.S. cities, he predicts.
The reason is simple. This isn’t 1968 or even 1978, when Islam in America consisted primarily of a few thousand Nation of Islam and Black Panther activists.
Islam, particularly the Salafist brand of Sunni Islam promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to spread Shariah throughout the world, has been allowed to establish a major foothold in America.
More than 300 U.S. cities and towns have been stacked with Sharia-compliant Muslims through refugee resettlement and myriad other visa programs that have been expanding for four decades.
Meanwhile, groups that agitate for Muslim “civil rights,” which tend to manifest as special privileges not afforded to Christians, have been empowered. Thanks to the expanded immigration, the U.S. Muslim population has exploded to 3.3 million, the number of mosques has grown exponentially and the Council on American Islamic Relations or CAIR is now a force to be reckoned with despite its ties to extremist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, Haney said.
“There’s this concept of the observant Muslim base, it’s a global observant base, and that’s what the Muslim Brotherhood has done here in America since the 1960s is build up that observant Muslim base,” Haney said.
In a document seized by the FBI and presented at a terror-financing trial in Texas in 2007, the Brotherhood referred to this process as building “settlements” in the U.S. that would eventually subjugate all other religions. Doubters can read the Brotherhood’s strategy in the Brotherhood’s own words in a document titled the “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Russia have all banned the Muslim Brotherhood for its terrorist connections and seditious strategies.
A bill on Congress, the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act, would do the same thing, declaring CAIR and other Brotherhood-affiliated group as terrorists.
“Now the U.S. has a new president who is considering doing the same thing and CAIR is crying about Islamophobia,” Haney said. “And that’s why they need to be designated as terrorists.”
Trump is already showing a pattern, a trend of behaviors, which indicates he plans to follow through with campaign promises related to Israel, terrorism and immigration, Haney said.
The main school of Islamic jurisprudence in North America, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America or AMJA, issued a fatwa which it called a “roadmap” for Muslim reaction in the wake of Trump’s election victory.
“They are expecting him to actually do what he said, so the AMJA steps in and provides a Shariah-compliant roadmap on the way that they should respond,” Haney said. “They have set the parameters of the acceptable response based on Shariah law. They included not only 32 Quranic verses woven into the roadmap but several other references to the hadith.
“The AMJA put this statement out and mobilized the observant Muslim base calling on them to be prepared to respond.”
And it’s not just Muslims who will join in this monumental push back against Trump.
As seen at protests in major U.S. airports Sunday, the radical left is eager to take up the crusade of Muslim activism. Haney says it’s not just American Muslims who will join this fight, either, but global Islamic extremists who are invested in destroying Israel, propping up the Muslim Brotherhood, and continuing the flow of Shariah-compliant Muslims from the Middle East into Western democracies.
“These three points will trigger conflict between the global Islamic community and the Trump administration,” he told WND. “There aren’t any other issues that have the volatility to precipitate actions up to and including violence.”
Haney said the three trigger points will affect three different areas: The Israel policy will affect the political arena, the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist declaration will affect law enforcement, and the immigration issue will affect the fabric of American society, halting the process of Islamization and civilization jihad that has been steadily occurring for the last 35 years and which was placed into overdrive under Barack Obama.
“It’s not about Trump. It’s about America,” Haney said. “America has had the audacity to pick someone different from what the world wanted, which was someone who would not be submissive to the global Islamic movement. So America is now going to become the focus of this backlash.”
In fact, the hardcore Islamic extremists affiliated with the Brotherhood and their allies among the hardcore left are already mobilizing a pushback for the cause of Shariah law. These troops have enjoyed complete cooperation from the U.S. government over the last eight years, Haney said, and to an extent for the last 20 years going back to the Bushes and Clintons. All of these administrations reached out to the Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations for advice and counsel, inviting them to the White House, the State Department, and the departments of Homeland Security and Justice.
Trump has signaled a different approach by talking about moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, declaring the Brotherhood a terrorist organization and restricting Muslim immigration while shifting the government’s focus to rescuing Christian refugees. These were three untouchables under previous U.S. administrations and by even talking about these actions Trump must be prepared for a strong reaction, both foreign and domestic, Haney says.
The Brotherhood’s self-avowed goal is to spread Shariah around the globe. In the U.S., it works through a network of alphabet-soup organization that include CAIR, the Muslim Student Association or MSA, the Islamic Society of North America or ISNA, the Islamic Circle of North America or ICNA, and the Muslim American Society or MAS.
These Brotherhood-linked groups work to infiltrate and influence America’s critical institutions –government and law enforcement, the educational system and the nation’s churches and synagogues. The overall goal of this three-pronged attack is to wear down these institutions’ defenses to Shariah concepts, such as the idea that criticism of Islam or its prophet is off limits and makes one an “Islamophobe” worthy of second-class status. Criticism of Christianity continues to be popular sport in American society but criticism of Islam is socially unacceptable in the media, pop culture, business, academia or law enforcement. This is essentially a voluntary implementation of the Islamic blasphemy law – which is the beginning of Shariah – Haney says.
The most important Islamic voice to watch in America is the AMJA – the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America. This is the group of scholars that Muslim clerics look to for guidance on what to teach in America’s mosques, more than 75 percent of which have been funded by Saudi Arabia and 85 percent of which are led by foreign-born imams.
The AMJA issued a fatwa following Trump’s election, offering a “roadmap” forward on how U.S. Muslims should react to the changes Trump might try to implement. This roadmap informed the U.S. Muslim community that the rise of Trump held the potential to be a “calamity” for their future in this country.
While urging them not to panic, the AMJA then dropped the bombshell that the “worst of the worst” in America were those who try to destroy Muslim civil rights organizations, a direct reference to CAIR, ISNA, MSA and their overarching sponsor, the Muslim Brotherhood. The fatwa went on to warn Muslims that they may have to take drastic actions that they don’t want to take but which will please Allah, quoting almost word for word from the Quran.
Civilization jihad calls for changing a nation by changing its people and its values—gradually, over time.
Stealth Invasion blows the lid off a corrupt, fraudulent program that has been secretly dumping Third World refugees, many of them radical, on American cities for three decades.
Americans have been kept largely in the dark about the radical plans to permanently transform their nation. Until now.
After Trump announced the first round of his border security and immigration crackdowns Wednesday, CAIR Director Nihad Awad immediately ramped up his rhetoric. He denounced the administration’s actions as “Islamophobic” and compared refusing Muslim refugees to previous U.S. policies of “slavery” and denying women the vote.
These are fighting words, Haney said, and sure enough CAIR’s chapters in New York and Dallas responded with their own press conferences, tweets and rallies denouncing Trump.
CAIR was also front and center in the protests at American airports Sunday.
This is just the beginning of what will be an ongoing battle of wills between Trump’s administration and the Shariah-supportive Muslim community that feels emboldened by its allies in the media and among what are mainly Marxist and left-leaning professors, lawyers and community organizers, Haney said.
Haney, who co-authored the whistleblower book “See Something Say Nothing” upon leaving DHS, says to watch the three trigger points going forward.
Any one of those three issues will be viewed as part of the “calamity” that the AMJA roadmap fatwa warned was coming under a Trump administration.
Trump will be challenged to find some Muslims who are not affiliated with Brotherhood organizations and give them a voice that offers an alternative to the intolerance and extremism put forth by CAIR, which has direct ties to Hamas and has had nearly a dozen of its current and former leaders investigated and charged with terrorist-related crimes.
Trump comments about moving the embassy to Jerusalem reverberated all the way to the slums of Sadr City in Iraq, where Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said a U.S. Jerusalem embassy would be tantamount to an all-out war against Islam.
“Just the fact that our ambassador said he will move his residence to Jerusalem is provocative enough,” Haney said. “It’s a declaration of war against the USA, and Sadr is saying the Shia will fill in the void if Sunnis don’t do what they’re supposed to do.”
On the immigration front, Trump said he plans to restrict visa permits for 30 days from seven Islamic countries, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan and Libya, while pausing all refugee resettlements for four months or until “extreme vetting” practices can be developed.
These would seem to be rather mild responses to the uptick in Islamic terrorism both in Europe and the United States over the last three years. Jihadist attacks on U.S. soil have included the Boston Marathon bombing, the knife attacks at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota, and at Ohio State University, the Orlando nightclub mass shooting, the Chattanooga shooting at a Navy recruitment center, the pipe bombing in Manhattan, and the San Bernardino shooting. All of these attacks were carried out by Muslim immigrants or sons of Muslim immigrants.
But the Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations know the importance of the Islamic principle of al hijra, the Arabic term for “migration.” Their prophet, Muhammad, used it to perfection in his conquering of Medina back in the seventh century and it has been a favorite tactic of Shariah-adherent Muslims ever since.
The prayer by Imam Mohamed Magid at Trump’s inaugural prayer service in the National Cathedral last Saturday amounted to a “a signal flag,” to the Muslim community, Haney said. “The context of the verse he quoted from the Quran just happens to be related to the AMJA roadmap fatwa, so what he did was he waved a signal flag and told the Islamic community, here I am, I’m making a declaration that we should stand up and oppose the calamity of the Trump administration.”
Magid’s Muslim Brotherhood credentials are impressive. He’s past-president of ISNA, he served on Obama’s CVE or “countering violent extremism” steering committee and he is imam of the ADAMS mosque that was at one time under investigation by the federal government for ties to Hamas. And if that’ snot enough, he’s listed on the AMJA website as a shake and a fatwa expert. A shake in Islam is higher than imam.
“That means he’s a trained Shariah specialist,” Haney said. “But here he is at the National Cathedral in Washington delivering an inauguration prayer.”
Haney goes back to the allegory Trump used of draining the water out of the swamp.
“Your work really begins after the water is taken out,” he said. “You have to see what is actually buried down in the muck and mire. And if Trump has experts who are qualified to go in and conduct a forensic analysis, they’re going to find all kinds of stuff there and it will set in motion a whole sequence of events, if they can catch their breath and take a look at it. It will set off a sequence of events that will allow law enforcement and immigration officials to honestly evaluate the status of our current immigration policies and they’re going to find that there are a lot of problems with it, whether it’s the State Department issuing visas to folks they shouldn’t be, the way the USCS process people coming into the country on visas and green cards, all the way to the United Nations itself and how it does the initial selection and vetting of the refugees.
“So this examination, if it is thorough, is going to set off a lot of events that are going to expose the methods of the Obama administration as providing no oversight or protection whatsoever.”
Rachel Ehrenfeld writes about the extreme vetting process that President Trump could use to quickly detect if a person has terrorist designs against the United States. Ehrenfeld has an idea based on some technology created in Israel yet commissioned by the United States Department of Homeland Security.
An effective way to find out the applicant’s intentions would be screening through an efficient, unbiased, and non-intrusive system. Such a system was developed by an Israeli company with a grant from the Department of Homeland Security, which the Obama administration refused to utilize.
The Suspect Detection System (SDS) has developed counter-terrorist and insider threat detection technology named COGITO. This technology enables law enforcement agencies to rapidly investigate U.S. visa applicants (and other travelers) entering the country, insider threats among employees, etc.
COGITO technology is an automated interrogation system that can determine in 5-7 minutes if an individual is harboring hostile intent. The system interviews the examinee with up to 36 questions while measuring the psychophysical signals of the human body. The system has 95% accuracy and has helped security agencies globally to catch terrorists and solve crimes.
I did a little looking into this COGITO technology. My impression is the concept was initially developed for companies to use to vet their new employees with something more efficiency than a lengthy lie detector test. Evidently the COGITO technology can be streamlined for many psych detection purposes including terrorism.
In the process of investigating “COGITO” I discovered it is not an acronym for some scientific gizmo, rather it is an actual word. Here is an interesting definition for “cogito”:
1: the philosophical principle that one’s existence is demonstrated by the fact that one thinks
2: the intellectual processes of the self or ego
Origin and Etymology of cogito
New Latin cogito, ergo sum, literally, I think, therefore I am, principle stated by René Descartes
First Known Use: 1838 (Definition of cogito; Merriam-Webster)
Apparently SDS technology has taken a philosophical and retrofitted it to a psychological examination of discovering – so-to-speak – who a person is.
Here is the short version of the SDS COGITO technology that can be employed:
Suspect Detection Systems Inc.’s Cogito Data Center (Cogito DC) is a central knowledgebase and control server that serves as a complete analytical back office to the Cogito Rapid Interrogation System. Cogito DC will enable SDS customers to create a central storage base of all examinee data. The interrogation system collects an vast amount of data with each examination beginning with a scan of the examinees passport or identification card. The system then scans unique biometric identification information including fingerprint and iris (eye) imaging, and voice signature. The Cogito DC knowledgebase then aggregates and analyzes the interrogation results of all examinees. The system compares test results of potential suspects from common backgrounds, which then enables interrogators to perform intelligence analysis over the entire scope of collected metadata. (Cogito Data Center; SUSPECT DETECTION SYSTEMS INC.)
And here is an excerpt from the longer version of the technology behind COGITO:
General
The COGITO system is a technology-based concept and solution for the detection of suspects harboring malicious intent serves for detection of “Internal Threat” (employees of governmental agencies and enterprises that have destructive intents), Police interrogations and border security. The COGITO concept is derived from extensive interdisciplinary know-how in security, polygraph testing and field-proven security-related interrogation techniques.
The COGITO core technology is based on proprietary software – an “expert system” that emulates an investigator’s Modus Operandi by incorporating “soft decision-making” algorithms such as “Neural Networks” and “Fuzzy Logic”. All hardware elements are best-of-breed off-the-shelf third-party components. The technical solution is comprised of a front-end, the ‘Test Station’, and a back-office where multiple-station and multiple-site data is stored, managed and distributed.
COGITO presents a significant conceptual breakthrough that can assist international aviation and homeland security authorities in responding to increasingly sophisticated means of international terrorism. This concept is based on several well-established paradigms and assumptions.
Intent vs. Means
The COGITO concept focuses on detecting terrorist (malicious) intent as opposed to detecting the means (i.e. explosives or weapons). The value of detecting intent is based on several well-founded and proven assumptions. As proven in the 9/11 and many other terrorist attacks when entering a country, terrorists will not necessarily carry weapons or devices on their person. This has been well demonstrated in several international terror attacks. Moreover, terrorists with intent of perpetrating a chemical, biological or atomic terrorist attack are all the more not likely to carry such devices on their person while entering the United States through an official checkpoint or border crossing.
Stimulated Psycho Physical Reaction (SPPR)
The COGITO method is based on stimulating examinees with specific terrorism-related triggers using a “direct contact, interaction, conscious, portal” approach:
The COGITO method postulates that specific words or questions can force terrorist to generate a SPPR that is identifiably different than that of a non-terrorist’s SPPR to the same words or questions. Based on extensive field experience accumulated by Israeli security agencies, the only common characteristic to all suicide bombers and “effective terrorists” is their desire not to be caught by security authorities. The terrorist’s fundamental motivation to successfully perform the terrorist act and not be caught by security authorities clearly differentiates him from the innocent person not harboring such intent. This identifiable motivation is known as the “terrorist hunting–hunted syndrome” (THHS). In order to identify and isolate the terrorist, one needs to … READ THE REST ([COGITO] TECHNOLOGY; Suspect Detection Systems: Human Psychophysiology Behavour Analysis)
On a personal level and at least a palpable negative argument for this rather quick vetting process, I think this is something President Trump should seriously take a look at! ESPECIALLY since President Barack Hussein Obama rejected this technology as a foreign immigrant vetting process.
President Donald Trump’s executive order on “Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals,” has been met, as anticipated, with alarm by opponents at home and abroad. Some resent the new American president and his actions to protect the country, as he promised to do. Others, like the Muslim Brotherhood’s affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), protest the suspension of U.S. visas to Muslim refugees and travelers from the radical -Islamic-terrorist prone countries Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia.
His executive order proclaims (emphasis added): “The United States must be vigilant during the visa issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism. In order to protect Americans, we must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes towards our country and its founding principles. Section 2 of the active order states that the policy of the U.S. is “(a) protect our citizens from foreign nationals who intend tocommit terrorist attacks in the United States; and (b) prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.”
To prevent such individuals from entering the U.S., the executive order requests the development of a uniform screening program, which in fact would reinforce requirements that have been deliberately ignored by the Obama administration.
However, radical-Islamic terrorists are not limited to the countries list by the EO. There are unknown numbers of ISIS volunteers who returned to Europe and other Western nations, which the new EO exempts. But even if the screening is done by the book, and all necessary documentation has been obtained and verified, and the applicant declares he holds no ill intentions toward America and Americans, nothing available to the screeners today would easily reveal that he or she is lying.
An effective way to find out the applicant’s intentions would be screening through an efficient, unbiased, and non-intrusive system. Such a system was developed by an Israeli company with a grant from the Department of Homeland Security, which the Obama administration refused to utilize.
The Suspect Detection System (SDS) has developed counter-terrorist and insider threat detection technology named COGITO. This technology enables law enforcement agencies to rapidly investigate U.S. visa applicants (and other travelers) entering the country, insider threats among employees, etc.
COGITO technology is an automated interrogation system that can determine in 5-7 minutes if an individual is harboring hostile intent. The system interviews the examinee with up to 36 questions while measuring the psychophysical signals of the human body. The system has 95% accuracy and has helped security agencies globally to catch terrorists and solve crimes.
According to the company’s website, the SDS allows the screening of a large number of people in a short time. It “does not require operator training. One operator can handle simultaneously ten stations. It has a central management and database system that allows storing all tests results, analysis, and data mining, and is deployed and integrated with governmental agencies.” Using this system would eliminate the need to use often biased U.S. Consulate employees. Moreover, the SDS uses an automated decision-making system, which is “adaptable to a variety of different questioning contexts, different cultures, and languages. The examination lasts 5 minutes when there are no indications of harmful intent, and 7 minutes to ascertain it (with only 4% false positive, and 10% false negative).”
The COGITO is used in 15 countries including Israel, Singapore, China, India, and Mexico. U.S. airlines operating in Latin America are using COGITO to check their employees.
But last year DHS refused to use the SDS, claiming that it “would constitute an intrusion on the privacy of those screened by the system” and “[i]t may reflect on VISA applicants or Immigrant’s civil rights.” However, foreigners applying for a U.S. visa are not protected by American laws.
SDS capability to detect intent seems to fit President Trump’s promise of “extreme vetting” of Muslim refugees from high-risk regions. This and other similarly objective systems would not only assist in making America safer but also be in keeping its policy and tradition of accepting refugees who do not wish us harm.
The ACD is dedicated to exposing threats to our free speech rights, political and economic freedoms and national security.
ACD is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. All contributions are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.
OUR DISTINCTION
ACD fills an important gap created by inadequate risk assessments of our cyberspace, GPS & UTC. We use our Threatcon programs, our multidimensional Terrorist Finance Network Tracker (TFNT), and our experts to better inform government, public and private sectors’ policy makers.
CONNECTING THE DOTS
ACD’s synergistic approach to connect the dots on emerging threats is facilitated by extensive multidisciplinary global research in various languages. We publish our knowledge-based analysis and use the information to offer special tools to help prevent and mitigate such threats.
ACD’s Threatcon, offersindividually tailored programs of briefing and scenario gaming to encourage government, public and private sectors to cooperate in preventing and mitigating the risks to our political and economic freedoms and to our national security.
ACD’s Terrorist Finance Network Tracker (TFNT), a unique anti money laundering (AML) system, is using a multidimensional approach to build and regularly update a comprehensive database identifying operational and financial networks of transnational radical Islamic groups.
“Lean and agile, ACD/EWI is always ahead of the next threat: cyber attacks, market manipulation , the use of legal structures to inhibit free speech and stifle debate”-Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense
The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right 
